posted
The basic question seems to be whether there was one or two migration waves to the New World. I, and others, have serious doubts about the accuracy of craniometry in distinguishing phylogenetic from genetic drift and environmental adaptation. A much better source of information is genetics, and here the evidence is in favor of one source population. Here is a paper strongly supporting a single population source
K. B. Schroeder , K. B, et al. 2007 “A private allele ubiquitous in the Americas,” Biol. Lett. 3,: 218–223
quote:Abstract The three-wave migration hypothesis of Greenberg et al. has permeated the genetic literature on the peopling of the Americas. Greenberg et al. proposed that Na-Dene, Aleut-Eskimo and Amerind are language phyla which represent separate migrations from Asia to the Americas. We show that a unique allele at autosomal microsatellite locus D9S1120 is present in all sampled North and South American populations, including the Na-Dene and Aleut- Eskimo, and in related Western Beringian groups, at an average frequency of 31.7%. This allele was not observed in any sampled putative Asian source populations or in other worldwide populations. Neither selection nor admixture explains the distribution of this regionally specific marker. The simplest explanation for the ubiquity of this allele across the Americas is that the same founding population contributed a large fraction of ancestry to all modern Native American populations.
p. 222 Irrespective of the evolutionary history of other unlinked loci, the remarkable distribution of 9RA severely constrains the possible evolutionary histories of modern Native American populations. The simplest explanation for the homogeneous frequency of 9RA across the Americas is that the Americas were settled by a single founding population in which 9RA was present and from which all modern Native American populations descend. While homogenization can occur through selection or gene flow, we show it is unlikely either of these processes is solely responsible for the distribution of 9RA. . . . . The presence of 9RA in the Koryaks and Chukchi is consistent with other genetic evidence of shared ancestry between Western Beringians and Native Americans (e.g. Karafet et al. 1997; Lell et al. 1997; Schurr et al. 1999). The observed geographical distribution of 9RA is quite similar to that of two other alleles that descend from unique mutational events, the 16111T and DYS199T transitions which define Native American mtDNA lineage A2 and Y-chromosome lineage Q-M3 (Underhill et al. 1996), respectively. Hence, three independent lines of genetic evidence support the claim (Shields et al. 1993) of an ancient gene pool that included the ancestors of the modern inhabitants of Western Beringia and the Americas.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: The basic question seems to be whether there was one or two migration waves to the New World. I, and others, have serious doubts about the accuracy of craniometry in distinguishing phylogenetic from genetic drift and environmental adaptation.
Hey genius as noted early anatomically modern humans around the world outside of Africa from Australia, Asia to Europe and the Americas resembled most closely Oceanic's, in essence Africans.
Of course this is because humans ultimately were originally evolving in tropical Africa and dispersed from tropical Africa populating the world preserving this tropical morphological phenotype before adapting to any other environment.
For you to dismiss this plain logical common sense shows your biased approach as being against any sort of presence of the original human phenotype (tropical African) being present in the Americas before slavery...
Sorry guy but just as you we see in modern Australia and the tropical regions humans coming from Africa first inhabited is how they arrived in the northern latitudes all the way into the Americas!!
Btw, isn't Quetzalcoatl the diety that supposedly was a white European? No wonder you'd take that name... Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would a Phd holder want to become a policeman and also fail the admission psychological test to become one (scoring for 98% depression)? Does anyone know if he's indeed a Dr ?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
The basic question seems to be whether there was one or two migration waves to the New World. I, and others, have serious doubts about the accuracy of craniometry in distinguishing phylogenetic from genetic drift and environmental adaptation.
At this point, one would have to surmise that your doubts are political, as you have not answered the strong correlative 'temporal-cephalometric' trends noted.
quote: A much better source of information is genetics, and here the evidence is in favor of one source population.
Classic genetic markers don't necessarily predict cranio-morphometric patterns as fringe pseudo-scientist and lay persons are inclined to believe. If say, the "Olmecs" are not represented by any of the modern samples tested, then how would one discern what gene pool they had? Presumably, by extracting DNA from specimens reported to be from individuals part of the "Olmec" complex, which had not broken down and not been contaminated. Has this been achieved? Even then, such would not necessarily negate a two major wave migratory scenario. One is purported to have occurred in an ancestral population, and the other occurred in a population that had already undergone further considerable bone modifications. One can presume that this could be a function of local microevolution upon arrival, but again, from the diversity of matters within late Paleolithic specimen with respect to those seen within the later [early Holocene] specimens does not allow an observer to make such an interpretation, see:
The heterogeneity among early American crania makes it inadvisable to pool them for purposes of morphometric analysis. Whether this heterogeneity results from different early migrations or one highly differentiated population cannot be established from our data. Our results are inconsistent with hypotheses of an ancestor-descendent relationship between early and late Holocene American populations. They suggest that the pattern of cranial variation is of recent origin, at least in the Plains region. - Jantz et al. (2001)
..and that was just for the later early specimens. Neves et al. reported their observations for the older specimens, found in South America. Does the level of homogeneity or heterogeneity in the oldest early bunch and the later early bunch respectively, bespeak local microevolution in a singular source ancestral migrant group into the heterogeneity, as seen in the later dated early specimens, within the temporal spans between the specimens in question?
quote: Here is a paper strongly supporting a single population source
K. B. Schroeder , K. B, et al. 2007 “A private allele ubiquitous in the Americas,” Biol. Lett. 3,: 218–223
quote:Abstract The three-wave migration hypothesis of Greenberg et al. has permeated the genetic literature on the peopling of the Americas. Greenberg et al. proposed that Na-Dene, Aleut-Eskimo and Amerind are language phyla which represent separate migrations from Asia to the Americas. We show that a unique allele at autosomal microsatellite locus D9S1120 is present in all sampled North and South American populations, including the Na-Dene and Aleut- Eskimo, and in related Western Beringian groups, at an average frequency of 31.7%. This allele was not observed in any sampled putative Asian source populations or in other worldwide populations.
The authors just noted that this was found in Western Beringian groups; are those not Asians?
Furthermore, with an average frequency of 31.7%, the obvious implication is that others within group for the remainder of the samples did not turn up positive for said marker, wouldn't it? Should we then assume that only small segments of said populations are true links to the original late paleolithic a.m.h. settlers?
quote:
Neither selection nor admixture explains the distribution of this regionally specific marker.
The presence of the marker suggests that it could have been among at least one of the source populations and then found better expression in a descendant population that situated itself elsewhere [founder effect]. This does not negate the possibility of more than a single early migratory event scenario.
quote: The simplest explanation for the ubiquity of this allele across the Americas is that the same founding population contributed a large fraction of ancestry to all modern Native American populations.
Keyword here is "simplest". The authors seek the "simplest" explanation, but complex matters like human migrations and diversity are rarely simple in explanation. Does the authors consider a single locus as indicative of "large fraction of ancestry to all modern Native American populations"? Furthermore, does an average reported frequency of 31.7% support this, and that admixture has to be ruled out in its spread?
quote: p. 222 Irrespective of the evolutionary history of other unlinked loci, the remarkable distribution of 9RA severely constrains the possible evolutionary histories of modern Native American populations. The simplest explanation for the homogeneous frequency of 9RA across the Americas is that the Americas were settled by a single founding population in which 9RA was present and from which all modern Native American populations descend. While homogenization can occur through selection or gene flow, we show it is unlikely either of these processes is solely responsible for the distribution of 9RA.
So here, unlike the first autosomal marker invoked, the authors don't rule out selection and gene flow to explain the distribution? If so, then how does this necessarily negate more than a single early settler population?
quote: . . . . The presence of 9RA in the Koryaks and Chukchi is consistent with other genetic evidence of shared ancestry between Western Beringians and Native Americans (e.g. Karafet et al. 1997; Lell et al. 1997; Schurr et al. 1999). The observed geographical distribution of 9RA is quite similar to that of two other alleles that descend from unique mutational events, the 16111T and DYS199T transitions which define Native American mtDNA lineage A2 and Y-chromosome lineage Q-M3 (Underhill et al. 1996), respectively. Hence, three independent lines of genetic evidence support the claim (Shields et al. 1993) of an ancient gene pool that included the ancestors of the modern inhabitants of Western Beringia and the Americas.
Suffice to say, just suppose, the earliest migrants came from the same gene pool source as the latter migrants, but apparently at different times, how then does one estimate that only a single migratory event could have taken place?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: The basic question seems to be whether there was one or two migration waves to the New World. I, and others, have serious doubts about the accuracy of craniometry in distinguishing phylogenetic from genetic drift and environmental adaptation.
Hey genius as noted early anatomically modern humans around the world outside of Africa from Australia, Asia to Europe and the Americas resembled most closely Oceanic's, in essence Africans.
Of course this is because humans ultimately were originally evolving in tropical Africa and dispersed from tropical Africa populating the world preserving this tropical morphological phenotype before adapting to any other environment.
For you to dismiss this plain logical common sense shows your biased approach as being against any sort of presence of the original human phenotype (tropical African) being present in the Americas before slavery...
Sorry guy but just as you we see in modern Australia and the tropical regions humans coming from Africa first inhabited is how they arrived in the northern latitudes all the way into the Americas!
I thought we were having a reasoned discussion without resorting to ad hominems, oh well. So you are arguing that morphologically there were no changes between 70.000 BC eastern Africa and 1500 BC Veracruz? How , exactly did the "tropical morphology" survive thousands of years of living in Siberia? After all, the genetics are clear that the source population for the New World came from there. The presence of a "tropical" morphology in the New World can just as well be explained by re adaptation to living in New World tropics . What is clear, and you keep evading, is the clear genetic data that all paleoindians have the same genetic make up as modern Native Americans. My last post provides proof that there was only one migration to the New World.
quote:Btw, isn't Quetzalcoatl the diety that supposedly was a white European? No wonder you'd take that name...
Just like Afrocentrics have myths about creating all the word's cultures, Spanish priests had myths about a white St.Thomas coming to the New World. See Burying the White Gods Quetzalcoatl, a creator god, was the patron of learning and of writing.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I understand, Clyde holds a ph.d in the social sciences, not the natural sciences. This man has no authority in anthropology, linguistics and genetics, yet I see Afronuts on this board quoting some of his pseudo-papers.
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Why would a Phd holder want to become a policeman and also fail the admission psychological test to become one (scoring for 98% depression)? Does anyone know if he's indeed a Dr ?
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [QUOTE] So you are arguing that morphologically there were no changes between 70.000 BC eastern Africa and 1500 BC Veracruz?
Evergreen Writes:
Red Herring.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [QUOTE]How , exactly did the "tropical morphology" survive thousands of years of living in Siberia?
Evergreen Writes:
The same way it did in Europe, where we see semi-tropcially adapted populations as late as the mesolithic period.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [QUOTE]The presence of a "tropical" morphology in the New World can just as well be explained by re adaptation to living in New World tropics.
Evergreen Writes:
Could be. We clearly have evidence that early Holocene New World populations morphologically cluster with recent Africans before modern Indians. Do you have any evidence of archaeology indicating African > Amerinindian back to > African morphology in the New World. If not your position would be highly speculative.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [QUOTE]Just like Afrocentrics have myths about creating all the word's cultures...
Evergreen Writes:
I thought we were having a reasoned discussion without resorting to ad hominems, oh well.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: The basic question seems to be whether there was one or two migration waves to the New World. I, and others, have serious doubts about the accuracy of craniometry in distinguishing phylogenetic from genetic drift and environmental adaptation.
Hey genius as noted early anatomically modern humans around the world outside of Africa from Australia, Asia to Europe and the Americas resembled most closely Oceanic's, in essence Africans.
Of course this is because humans ultimately were originally evolving in tropical Africa and dispersed from tropical Africa populating the world preserving this tropical morphological phenotype before adapting to any other environment.
For you to dismiss this plain logical common sense shows your biased approach as being against any sort of presence of the original human phenotype (tropical African) being present in the Americas before slavery...
Sorry guy but just as you we see in modern Australia and the tropical regions humans coming from Africa first inhabited is how they arrived in the northern latitudes all the way into the Americas!
I thought we were having a reasoned discussion without resorting to ad hominems, oh well. So you are arguing that morphologically there were no changes between 70.000 BC eastern Africa and 1500 BC Veracruz? How , exactly did the "tropical morphology" survive thousands of years of living in Siberia? After all, the genetics are clear that the source population for the New World came from there. The presence of a "tropical" morphology in the New World can just as well be explained by re adaptation to living in New World tropics . What is clear, and you keep evading, is the clear genetic data that all paleoindians have the same genetic make up as modern Native Americans. My last post provides proof that there was only one migration to the New World.
Actually I did not mention anything about genetics, nor am I evading it, so don't make things up. As I made note all early humans from around the world when they first reached the areas they now inhabit were tropically adapted this is visible in the skeletal records from East Asia to Europe and even the Americas, where they all resemble Oceanic's essentially Africans.
So you're excuse for this would be a re-acclimation to the tropical environements after adapted to frigid Siberia and obtaining the modern Native American look?
So when they came to the Americas, they re-adapted from an East Asian physiognomy back to resemble Oceanic's and Africans again?
Even though as already explained to you that early anatomically modern humans arrived around the world tropically adapted since humans come from, well....tropical Africa?
Wouldn't that be much more plausible than your re-adapting situational excuse to the tropics, being that they came from the tropics to begin with?
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Btw, isn't Quetzalcoatl the diety that supposedly was a white European? No wonder you'd take that name...
Just like Afrocentrics have myths about creating all the word's cultures, Spanish priests had myths about a white St.Thomas coming to the New World. See Burying the White Gods Quetzalcoatl, a creator god, was the patron of learning and of writing.
Like I said its really no wonder why you'd take that name, yet you're supposedly defending Native American history from pseudo-scholarship? Save it!!
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: [QUOTE]
So you're excuse for this would be a re-acclimation to the tropical environements after adapted to frigid Siberia and obtaining the modern Native American look?
So when they came to the Americas, they re-adapted from an East Asian physiognomy back to resemble Oceanic's and Africans again?
Even though as already explained to you that early anatomically modern humans arrived around the world tropically adapted since humans come from, well....tropical Africa?
Wouldn't that be much more plausible than your re-adapting situational excuse to the tropics, being that they came from the tropics to begin with?
Evergreen Writes:
Co-sign.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: [QUOTE]J Hum Evol. 2009
Dec;57(6):751-62. Epub 2009 Oct 28.
Into Eurasia: a geometric morphometric re-assessment of the Upper Cave (Zhoukoudian) specimens. Harvati K.
Department of Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology and Tübingen/Senckenberg Center for Human Evolution and Paleoecology, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany. katerina.harvati@ifu.uni-tuebingen.de
Since the discovery of the human remains from the Upper Cave of Zhoukoudian in the 1930s there has been speculation over their affinities. In particular, the degree to which the three adult crania exhibit recent East Asian morphology, as well as their degree of within-group variability, has long been debated. ****Several early researchers described a resemblance to East Asian populations, but these findings have been for the most part rejected by more recent metric and non-metric analyses.**** Nevertheless, the Upper Cave specimens have not been classified conclusively into any recent modern human population to which they have been compared, and classification results differ for each cranium. Here, the question of the affinities of Upper Cave 101 and 103, the two better-preserved crania, is examined from the perspective of the Late Pleistocene human fossil record using the methodology of 3-D geometric morphometrics. The degree of morphological variation between the two specimens is also evaluated within the context of recent population variability. Neurocranial and facial morphology are analyzed separately so as to maximize comparative samples. Results show a morphological resemblance of the Upper Cave material to Upper Paleolithic Europeans. It is proposed that the Upper Cave specimens retain important aspects of modern human ancestral morphology, and possibly share a recent common ancestral population with Upper Paleolithic Europeans, in accordance with the Single Origin model of modern human origins.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Suffice to say, just suppose, the earliest migrants came from the same gene pool source as the latter migrants, but apparently at different times, how then does one estimate that only a single migratory event could have taken place?
Good point, the early population movement into the Americas could have had the same gene pool as the second, but since they (first) were just arriving from the tropics as noted they still retained the tropical morphology. A portion of this early tropically adapted group arriving to East Asia could've made it to the Americas before having to adapt morphologically to the frigid northern climate, while some stayed back in Siberia and adapted to this harsh environment. Then came a second migration where the people already inhabiting the Americas with the ancestral human tropical phenotype would've basically had the same gene pool as the second incoming population who would've resembled the East Asian physiognomy.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yep, you hit the nail on its head. Under such a scenario, one would be hard-pressed to pin down founding settler demography to a single migratory event, especially from sampling living groups. And why would anyone want to argue for a single settler founder group in any case? That's right, the driver that urged the need for such undertaking was to demonstrate an *unbroken* link between the likes of the folks of the Olmec complex and living "Native" American populations, since the resemblance between facial phenotype of Olmec figures, as suggested by the colossal head sculptures, and those of living modern "Native" American groups--based on photographic comparisons--had been questioned.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: From what I understand, Clyde holds a ph.d in the social sciences , not the natural sciences. This man has no authority in anthropology, linguistics and genetics, yet I see Afronuts on this board quoting some of his pseudo-papers.
Anthropology and linguistics are social sciences Einstein.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
My bad, "Ph.d in Social Studies." You okay now Afronut?
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: From what I understand, Clyde holds a ph.d in the social sciences , not the natural sciences. This man has no authority in anthropology, linguistics and genetics, yet I see Afronuts on this board quoting some of his pseudo-papers.
Anthropology and linguistics are social sciences Einstein.
posted
We have no problem with one scholar challanging another..they should be challanged and their theories put to the test..the problem is with YOU!! and others like YOU who..lie for no gottdamn reason..post a bunch o bogus nonsense aim at disrupting dialogue,Like I said before opposing views is fine..orthodoxy sucs and is stiffling.But lying build mistrust and compound ignorance..therefore YOU are under NO moral position to question the motives of others and called them fake.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: My bad, "Ph.d in Social Studies." You okay now Afronut?
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: From what I understand, Clyde holds a ph.d in the social sciences , not the natural sciences. This man has no authority in anthropology, linguistics and genetics, yet I see Afronuts on this board quoting some of his pseudo-papers.
Anthropology and linguistics are social sciences Einstein.
Doctoral-level education that generalized doesn't exist, Einstein. It's akin to acquiring a PhD in science which is impossible.
Both anthropology and linguistics are social sciences. Genetics, on the other hand, is a natural science. I don't know what of specialization is since I am not totally familiar with his works.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What part of I MEANT SOCIAL STUDIES did you not understand afrofool?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: My bad, "Ph.d in Social Studies." You okay now Afronut?
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: From what I understand, Clyde holds a ph.d in the social sciences , not the natural sciences. This man has no authority in anthropology, linguistics and genetics, yet I see Afronuts on this board quoting some of his pseudo-papers.
Anthropology and linguistics are social sciences Einstein.
Doctoral-level education that generalized doesn't exist, Einstein. It's akin to acquiring a PhD in science which is impossible.
Both anthropology and linguistics are social sciences. Genetics, on the other hand, is a natural science. I don't know what of specialization is since I am not totally familiar with his works.
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: What part of I MEANT SOCIAL STUDIES did you not understand afrofool?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: My bad, "Ph.d in Social Studies." You okay now Afronut?
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: From what I understand, Clyde holds a ph.d in the social sciences , not the natural sciences. This man has no authority in anthropology, linguistics and genetics, yet I see Afronuts on this board quoting some of his pseudo-papers.
Anthropology and linguistics are social sciences Einstein.
Doctoral-level education that generalized doesn't exist, Einstein. It's akin to acquiring a PhD in science which is impossible.
Both anthropology and linguistics are social sciences. Genetics, on the other hand, is a natural science. I don't know what of specialization is since I am not totally familiar with his works.
I don't know what universities offer a PhD in that area. However, I am pretty sure the discipline involves the social sciences. We'll just have to let him talk.
In addition, anthropology and linguistics is not a natural science. Both are social sciences that incorporate the hard sciences.
Saying that, I haven't read his works, nor studied linguistics (planning to during my free time). For that reason, I don't bother debating with him. However I have dealt with losers in the past when debating in the field of genetics.
You, on the other hand, haven't even countered his points. It could be done with genetics since migration in the Americas is said to have two sources: Australia and Siberia. The latter originally had a "generalized" African-esque form and the former still heavily resembles African populations morphologically.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01: [ You, on the other hand, haven't even countered his points. It could be done with genetics since migration in the Americas is said to have two sources: Australia and Siberia.
Please quote a refereed paper that says the settlers of the New World came directly from Australia.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01: [ You, on the other hand, haven't even countered his points. It could be done with genetics since migration in the Americas is said to have two sources: Australia and Siberia.
Please quote a refereed paper that says the settlers of the New World came directly from Australia.
Typo. I meant, Oceanic. Unfortunately I mixed up the two populations. The first wave entered the Americas were Oceanic populations, while the second wave were Siberian-based.
Both were Asian. The earlier population were the black-skinned populations common in present day Australasia and Oceania.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have respect for your use of "Black-skinned" in your description of these people. Most Afroflunkies will call them 'Black people' to play the deceptive game of theirs.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01: [ You, on the other hand, haven't even countered his points. It could be done with genetics since migration in the Americas is said to have two sources: Australia and Siberia.
Please quote a refereed paper that says the settlers of the New World came directly from Australia.
Typo. I meant, Oceanic. Unfortunately I mixed up the two populations. The first wave entered the Americas were Oceanic populations, while the second wave were Siberian-based.
Both were Asian. The earlier population were the black-skinned populations common in present day Australasia and Oceania.
posted
I see Prof. de Montellano "Quetzalcoatl" at it again with his red herrings, ignorance and hypocritical self righteousness; the old man couldn't help himself with his 'Afrocentric' ad hominems. lol
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01: [ You, on the other hand, haven't even countered his points. It could be done with genetics since migration in the Americas is said to have two sources: Australia and Siberia.
Please quote a refereed paper that says the settlers of the New World came directly from Australia.
Typo. I meant, Oceanic. Unfortunately I mixed up the two populations. The first wave entered the Americas were Oceanic populations, while the second wave were Siberian-based.
Both were Asian. The earlier population were the black-skinned populations common in present day Australasia and Oceania.
How did Oceanic people reach America 26kya. The archaeological evidence makes it clear that these Islands were not settle until after 3000BC.
Please cite your sources showing Oceanic people in Oceania between 26kya and 10kya.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Please quote a refereed paper that says the settlers of the New World came directly from Australia.
Noted is how you ignore all other posts and invent your own arguement wherein you know it's false.
I.e, "coming directly from Australia".
The essential point is that there were tropically adapted individuals (resembling Oceanic's and Africans) inhabiting the Americas before the east Asian adapted modern native Americans we see today.
This is not surprising as noted because anatomically modern humans arose in tropical Africa and spread out from Africa.
These early humans coming from Africa as explained to you (several times) arrived all across southern Asia into Melanesia, Australia etc... with a tropical phenotype, they also arrived in the northern latitudes how you see them still in the southern (resembling Africans) with the same tropical phenotype.
Another noted point is that these early tropically adapted humans would've carried the same Asian genetic lineages as the modern Native American population we see today, since as we know all humans untimately descend from a tropical phenotype which was instilled in our species for atleast 2 million years, according to simple laws of nature.
This would leave us with the question of what happened to these early anatomically modern humans carrying the ancestral phenotype of humans (African) who were indeed tropically adapted resembling Oceanic's and Africans who reached the Americas according to fossil data before any adaptation to northern latitudes of any anatomically modern human populations? Where'd they go?
Most logical explanation would be they intermixed with the incoming second migration, of which most likely both populations who entered the Americas (one tropically adapted as original humans were and the other more northerly adapted) possessed the same genetic structure and so there's no way to distinguish between them genetically.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Please quote a refereed paper that says the settlers of the New World came directly from Australia.
Noted is how you ignore all other posts and invent your own arguement wherein you know it's false.
I.e, "coming directly from Australia".
The essential point is that there were tropically adapted individuals (resembling Oceanic's and Africans) inhabiting the Americas before the east Asian adapted modern native Americans we see today.
This is not surprising as noted because anatomically modern humans arose in tropical Africa and spread out from Africa.
These early humans coming from Africa as explained to you (several times) arrived all across southern Asia into Melanesia, Australia etc... with a tropical phenotype, they also arrived in the northern latitudes how you see them still in the southern (resembling Africans) with the same tropical phenotype.
Another noted point is that these early tropically adapted humans would've carried the same Asian genetic lineages as the modern Native American population we see today, since as we know all humans untimately descend from a tropical phenotype which was instilled in our species for atleast 2 million years, according to simple laws of nature.
This would leave us with the question of what happened to these early anatomically modern humans carrying the ancestral phenotype of humans (African) who were indeed tropically adapted resembling Oceanic's and Africans who reached the Americas according to fossil data before any adaptation to northern latitudes of any anatomically modern human populations? Where'd they go?
Most logical explanation would be they intermixed with the incoming second migration, of which most likely both populations who entered the Americas (one tropically adapted as original humans were and the other more northerly adapted) possessed the same genetic structure and so there's no way to distinguish between them genetically.
I invented nothing. I was responding to a claim that there were two sources for the population of the New World Siberia AND Australia. This was obviously ridiculous and I asked for a citation. QUOTE]Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: I have respect for your use of "Black-skinned" in your description of these people. Most Afroflunkies will call them 'Black people' to play the deceptive game of theirs.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01: [ You, on the other hand, haven't even countered his points. It could be done with genetics since migration in the Americas is said to have two sources: Australia and Siberia.
Please quote a refereed paper that says the settlers of the New World came directly from Australia.
Typo. I meant, Oceanic. Unfortunately I mixed up the two populations. The first wave entered the Americas were Oceanic populations, while the second wave were Siberian-based.
Both were Asian. The earlier population were the black-skinned populations common in present day Australasia and Oceania.
[/QUOTE]
Mindovermatter acknowledged it was a typo. Case closed. All your stuff is irrelevant.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Please quote a refereed paper that says the settlers of the New World came directly from Australia.
Noted is how you ignore all other posts and invent your own arguement wherein you know it's false.
I.e, "coming directly from Australia".
The essential point is that there were tropically adapted individuals (resembling Oceanic's and Africans) inhabiting the Americas before the east Asian adapted modern native Americans we see today.
This is not surprising as noted because anatomically modern humans arose in tropical Africa and spread out from Africa.
These early humans coming from Africa as explained to you (several times) arrived all across southern Asia into Melanesia, Australia etc... with a tropical phenotype, they also arrived in the northern latitudes how you see them still in the southern (resembling Africans) with the same tropical phenotype.
Another noted point is that these early tropically adapted humans would've carried the same Asian genetic lineages as the modern Native American population we see today, since as we know all humans untimately descend from a tropical phenotype which was instilled in our species for atleast 2 million years, according to simple laws of nature.
This would leave us with the question of what happened to these early anatomically modern humans carrying the ancestral phenotype of humans (African) who were indeed tropically adapted resembling Oceanic's and Africans who reached the Americas according to fossil data before any adaptation to northern latitudes of any anatomically modern human populations? Where'd they go?
Most logical explanation would be they intermixed with the incoming second migration, of which most likely both populations who entered the Americas (one tropically adapted as original humans were and the other more northerly adapted) possessed the same genetic structure and so there's no way to distinguish between them genetically.
I invented nothing. I was responding to a claim that there were two sources for the population of the New World Siberia AND Australia. This was obviously ridiculous and I asked for a citation.
Point was you ignored posts, cherrypicked what you wanted argue against because you know that is false and not what anyone else is saying.
Anyway I take it as you have no response to the Oceanic and African resembling tropically adapted humans who inhabited the Americas before any northeast Asian population adapted to these northern latitudes huh?
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Mindovermatter acknowledged it was a typo. Case closed. All your stuff is irrelevant.
Whose typo exactly did I acknowledge?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
So basically you are both saying that the Olmec features need not necessarily be a resemblance to second wave Meso-Americans (Asiatic appearance), but might actually reach back to an even earlier migratory era- that of the first wave OOA migrants who were tropically adapted?
----------------------------------------
MindoverMatter718 Member Member # 15400
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Suffice to say, just suppose, the earliest migrants came from the same gene pool source as the latter migrants, but apparently at different times, how then does one estimate that only a single migratory event could have taken place?
Good point, the early population movement into the Americas could have had the same gene pool as the second, but since they (first) were just arriving from the tropics as noted they still retained the tropical morphology. A portion of this early tropically adapted group arriving to East Asia could've made it to the Americas before having to adapt morphologically to the frigid northern climate, while some stayed back in Siberia and adapted to this harsh environment. Then came a second migration where the people already inhabiting the Americas with the ancestral human tropical phenotype would've basically had the same gene pool as the second incoming population who would've resembled the East Asian physiognomy. -----------------
The Explorer Member Member # 14778
Quote ^Yep, you hit the nail on its head. Under such a scenario, one would be hard-pressed to pin down founding settler demography to a single migratory event, especially from sampling living groups. And why would anyone want to argue for a single settler founder group in any case? That's right, the driver that urged the need for such undertaking was to demonstrate an *unbroken* link between the likes of the folks of the Olmec complex and living "Native" American populations, since the resemblance between facial phenotype of Olmec figures, as suggested by the colossal head sculptures, and those of living modern "Native" American groups--based on photographic comparisons--had been questioned.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Olmecs, if they actually looked anything like the colossal head sculptures, could have been a remnant of the original migrants -- who sported "generalized modern" cranio-facial traits, with some possible genetic exchange with later arrived early Holocene groups. This might explain why people see "negroid" features, while other's see "mongoloid" traits here and there, and yet others, a mix of both. From my observation, none of the contemporary groups compared with the colossal head figures in the photoshopped images closely match the said Olmec heads in facial phenotype. If that is an indicator, then it is possible that none of those groups accurately portray how the Olmecs could have looked like.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The Olmecs, if they actually looked anything like the colossal head sculptures, could have been a remnant of the original migrants -- who sported "generalized modern" cranio-facial traits, with some possible genetic exchange with later arrived early Holocene groups. This might explain why people see "negroid" features, while other's see "mongoloid" traits here and there, and yet others, a mix of both. From my observation, none of the contemporary groups compared with the colossal head figures in the photoshopped images closely match the said Olmec heads in facial phenotype. If that is an indicator, then it is possible that none of those groups accurately portray how the Olmecs could have looked like.
The reason people see this dicotomy results from the fact that the Olmec lived in the Gulf. The more oriental looking Olmecs are usually colonial Olmec from the Pacific region, i.e., Amerinds who adopted Olmec culture after 800BC.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Please quote a refereed paper that says the settlers of the New World came directly from Australia.
Noted is how you ignore all other posts and invent your own arguement wherein you know it's false.
I.e, "coming directly from Australia".
The essential point is that there were tropically adapted individuals (resembling Oceanic's and Africans) inhabiting the Americas before the east Asian adapted modern native Americans we see today.
This is not surprising as noted because anatomically modern humans arose in tropical Africa and spread out from Africa.
These early humans coming from Africa as explained to you (several times) arrived all across southern Asia into Melanesia, Australia etc... with a tropical phenotype, they also arrived in the northern latitudes how you see them still in the southern (resembling Africans) with the same tropical phenotype.
Another noted point is that these early tropically adapted humans would've carried the same Asian genetic lineages as the modern Native American population we see today, since as we know all humans untimately descend from a tropical phenotype which was instilled in our species for atleast 2 million years, according to simple laws of nature.
This would leave us with the question of what happened to these early anatomically modern humans carrying the ancestral phenotype of humans (African) who were indeed tropically adapted resembling Oceanic's and Africans who reached the Americas according to fossil data before any adaptation to northern latitudes of any anatomically modern human populations? Where'd they go?
Most logical explanation would be they intermixed with the incoming second migration, of which most likely both populations who entered the Americas (one tropically adapted as original humans were and the other more northerly adapted) possessed the same genetic structure and so there's no way to distinguish between them genetically.
I invented nothing. I was responding to a claim that there were two sources for the population of the New World Siberia AND Australia. This was obviously ridiculous and I asked for a citation. QUOTE]Originally posted by Recovering Afrocentrist: I have respect for your use of "Black-skinned" in your description of these people. Most Afroflunkies will call them 'Black people' to play the deceptive game of theirs.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01: [ You, on the other hand, haven't even countered his points. It could be done with genetics since migration in the Americas is said to have two sources: Australia and Siberia.
Please quote a refereed paper that says the settlers of the New World came directly from Australia.
Typo. I meant, Oceanic. Unfortunately I mixed up the two populations. The first wave entered the Americas were Oceanic populations, while the second wave were Siberian-based.
Both were Asian. The earlier population were the black-skinned populations common in present day Australasia and Oceania.
Mindovermatter acknowledged it was a typo. Case closed. All your stuff is irrelevant. [/QUOTE] And you're correct? Point is, the original inhabitants, i.e Olmecs included, were tropically adapted, African/Australian-esque, humans. In other words, they do not resemble the dominant cold adapted more common in the region.
What does that suggest? It suggests that it's likely that there was a second wave, as Mind suggests, from East Asia, producing the form we see today. The traits we see present amongst East Asians are very recent.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01: And you're correct? Point is, the original inhabitants, i.e Olmecs included, were tropically adapted, African/Australian-esque, humans. In other words, they do not resemble the dominant cold adapted more common in the region.
What does that suggest? It suggests that it's likely that there was a second wave, as Mind suggests, from East Asia, producing the form we see today. The traits we see present amongst East Asians are very recent.
Not really. There have been various studies that have shown that craniofacial variation in the Americas has been very high. There seems to also be a West East variation. Due most likely to genetic drift, the Americas has the highest inter populational genetic variation in the world (compared to Africans having the highest intra population variability) this is also expressed in inter populational craniofacial variability (same goes for Africa and intra populational craniofacial variability). Dr. Atui Verizano already confirmed that those craniofacial shapes exist in modern natives. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvkKzbMJ-EgPosts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01: And you're correct? Point is, the original inhabitants, i.e Olmecs included, were tropically adapted, African/Australian-esque, humans. In other words, they do not resemble the dominant cold adapted more common in the region.
What does that suggest? It suggests that it's likely that there was a second wave, as Mind suggests, from East Asia, producing the form we see today. The traits we see present amongst East Asians are very recent.
Not really. There have been various studies that have shown that craniofacial variation in the Americas has been very high. There seems to also be a West East variation. Due most likely to genetic drift, the Americas has the highest inter populational genetic variation in the world (compared to Africans having the highest intra population variability) this is also expressed in inter populational craniofacial variability (same goes for Africa and intra populational craniofacial variability). Dr. Atui Verizano already confirmed that those craniofacial shapes exist in modern natives. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvkKzbMJ-Eg
What study suggests this? Please cite those papers again. This time: direct evidence only. I do verify the papers that you cite, by the way.
Higher inter-population diversity is expected amongst Native Americans, because they are the most diverged population. Higher in-group population diversity would infer greater phenotypic plasticity amongst African populations.
PS: Provide Dr. Atui Verizano publication with regards to your claim as well.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01: What study suggests this? Please cite those papers again. This time: direct evidence only. I do verify the papers that you cite, by the way.
Higher inter-population diversity is expected amongst Native Americans, because they are the most diverged population. Higher in-group population diversity would infer greater phenotypic plasticity amongst African populations.
PS: Provide Dr. Atui Verizano publication with regards to your claim as well.
Nope, it would infer higher plasticity within African populations. Higher genetic diversity among populations would infer higher plasticity among populations. Dr. Atui has not published yet because he is doing further studies on the subject. Those were the conclusions of his doctoral thesis. http://www.jornaldaciencia.org.br/Detalhe.jsp?id=32121 You can ask him about it if you want. jpvatui@hotmail.com
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Due most likely to genetic drift, the Americas has the highest inter populational genetic variation in the world (compared to Africans having the highest intra population variability) this is also expressed in inter populational craniofacial variability (same goes for Africa and intra populational craniofacial variability).
This is not immediately apparent. Africans have more divergent markers than the "Native Americans", i.e. discounting markers amongst the latter from recent African gene flow. Yes, I'm quite aware that high intra-population variation could also mean lesser inter-population variation because of shared lineages. I mean, really, how divergent can "Native American" populations be, such that they would have higher "inter population variation" than Africans?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: Due most likely to genetic drift, the Americas has the highest inter populational genetic variation in the world (compared to Africans having the highest intra population variability) this is also expressed in inter populational craniofacial variability (same goes for Africa and intra populational craniofacial variability).
This is not immediately apparent. Africans have more divergent markers than the "Native Americans", i.e. discounting markers amongst the latter from recent African gene flow. Yes, I'm quite aware that high intra-population variation could also mean lesser inter-population variation because of shared lineages. I mean, really, how divergent can "Native American" populations be, such that they would have higher "inter population variation" than Africans?
Tishkoff, 2009
quote:The proportion of genetic variation among all studied African populations was 1.71%. In comparison, Native American and Oceanic populations show the greatest proportion of genetic variation among populations (8.36% and 4.59%, respectively).
About 4.9 times more variation between Native American populations than between African populations.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Explorer - I really don't understand why you bother; you treat these people as if they were normal intelligent people, they are not.
Dr. Tishkoff’s most recent work involved a 10-year collaboration with African, American and European researchers working on the largest-ever study of African genetic data—more than 4 million genotypes—to provide a library of new information on the continent which is thought to be the source of the oldest settlements of modern humans. The study demonstrated startling diversity and shared ancestry among geographically diverse groups, and it traced the origins of Africans and African-Americans. Researchers studied 121 African populations, four African-American populations and 60 non-African populations for patterns of variation at 1327 DNA markers, finding more genetic diversity in Africa than anywhere else on earth.
posted
^ Most genetic variation is found at the individual level. That means that Africans have greater overall plasticity. Thus there is a greater chance of the population diverging.
Regardless, when I posted the paper with regards to complexion, it was based on phenotype. Genotype isn't necessarily identical to phenotype even though the base of that expression. In that paper, it was suggested that skin color diversity (with-in population) was the GREATEST amongst sub-Saharan Africans.
quote:The proportion of genetic variation among all studied African populations was 1.71%. In comparison, Native American and Oceanic populations show the greatest proportion of genetic variation among populations (8.36% and 4.59%, respectively).
About 4.9 times more variation between Native American populations than between African populations.
The keywords above is "all studied African populations" -- that is to say, the populations "studied by them" in the paper in question; and I suspect the same applied to the Native American and Oceanic populations. What markers are we dealing with here; I suspect these are atDNA markers, but I'll let you confirm that. Africans have more divergent lineages than "Native Americans". "Native American" markers converge to the OOA subset of African gene pool, and hence, how does it happen, that they presumably have more inter-population variation than Africans? In other words, they share fewer divergent markers amongst the populations involved, when compared to Africans. The only way I can see what is being said above possibly happen--i.e. if one is dealing with autosomal nuclear markers, is if African populations were taken from same general geographical circles/regions, as opposed to those separated by substantial geography within the continent...vs. that of "Native American" groups who have been isolated from one another for a good degree of time. I question that this pattern would be repeated, if uniparental nuclear DNA or else mitochondrial DNA was considered. Anyway, I await your elaboration.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: About 4.9 times more variation between Native American populations than between African populations.
WTF?! Classic Jaime! LOL I don't even think its intellectual dishonesty anymore on his part, I think he really doesn't understand the studies he gleefully posts.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01: ^ Most genetic variation is found at the individual level. That means that Africans have greater overall plasticity. Thus there is a greater chance of the population diverging.
Regardless, when I posted the paper with regards to complexion, it was based on phenotype. Genotype isn't necessarily identical to phenotype even though the base of that expression. In that paper, it was suggested that skin color diversity (with-in population) was the GREATEST amongst sub-Saharan Africans.
Excellent reference. African diversity is so great that even skin color variation is the highest there among people who are AFRICAN, and who don't need any outside "race mix" to make them vary in the way the look. [quote:]
Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations. [quote:] "Previous studies of genetic and craniometric traits have found higher levels of within-population diversity in sub-Saharan Africa compared to other geographic regions. This study examines regional differences in within-population diversity of human skin color. Published data on skin reflectance were collected for 98 male samples from eight geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, West Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, Australasia, and the New World. Regional differences in local within-population diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation. For both measures, the average level of within-population diversity is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions. This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation between within-population diversity and distance from the equator. Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits." -- Relethford JH.(2000). Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations. Hum Biol. 2000 Oct;72(5):773-80.)
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01: ^ Most genetic variation is found at the individual level. That means that Africans have greater overall plasticity. Thus there is a greater chance of the population diverging.
Regardless, when I posted the paper with regards to complexion, it was based on phenotype. Genotype isn't necessarily identical to phenotype even though the base of that expression. In that paper, it was suggested that skin color diversity (with-in population) was the GREATEST amongst sub-Saharan Africans.
Only intra-population. "This study examines regional differences in within-population diversity of human skin color. "
Not inter-populational.
quote:The proportion of genetic variation among all studied African populations was 1.71%. In comparison, Native American and Oceanic populations show the greatest proportion of genetic variation among populations (8.36% and 4.59%, respectively).
About 4.9 times more variation between Native American populations than between African populations. [/QUOTE]
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: WTF?! Classic Jaime! LOL I don't even think its intellectual dishonesty anymore on his part, I think he really doesn't understand the studies he gleefully posts.
Math 101. 8.36 divided by 1.71 is?
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The proportion of genetic variation among all studied African populations was 1.71%. In comparison, Native American and Oceanic populations show the greatest proportion of genetic variation among populations (8.36% and 4.59%, respectively).
About 4.9 times more variation between Native American populations than between African populations.
The keywords above is "all studied African populations" -- that is to say, the populations "studied by them" in the paper in question; and I suspect the same applied to the Native American and Oceanic populations. What markers are we dealing with here; I suspect these are atDNA markers, but I'll let you confirm that. Africans have more divergent lineages than "Native Americans". "Native American" markers converge to the OOA subset of African gene pool, and hence, how does it happen, that they presumably have more inter-population variation than Africans? In other words, they share fewer divergent markers amongst the populations involved, when compared to Africans. The only way I can see what is being said above possibly happen--i.e. if one is dealing with autosomal nuclear markers, is if African populations were taken from same general geographical circles/regions, as opposed to those separated by substantial geography within the continent...vs. that of "Native American" groups who have been isolated from one another for a good degree of time. I question that this pattern would be repeated, if uniparental nuclear DNA or else mitochondrial DNA was considered. Anyway, I await your elaboration.
So you are saying it may not be an apples to apples comparison but skewed? On one hand- African populations in a general proximate geographic area, versus far-flung Native American populations isolated from one another?
Also how can the autosomal DNA yield the divergent results (if any)?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL Another classic Jaime! Maybe you should email her too and bitch about her findings. LOL
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: Math 101. 8.36 divided by 1.71 is?
Bitch, reading is fundamental: "The keywords above is all studied African populations" -- that is to say, the populations "studied by them" in the paper in question"
"Dr. Tishkoff's most recent work involved a 10-year collaboration ...finding more genetic diversity in Africa than anywhere else on earth."Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
So you are saying it may not be an apples to apples comparison but skewed? On one hand- African populations in a general proximate geographic area, versus far-flung Native American populations isolated from one another?
I am saying that these were either African populations who recently diverged and/or they are from the same general geographical regions. This naturally, would be predicated on whether atDNA markers were used, which looks to be case here. Whereas, the "Native American" populations used, would have likely been groups isolated from one another for a good degree of time, so that they would generate divergent atDNA clusters. I highly question the prospect that, if uniparental nuclear ancestry was used, that Tishkoff would have gotten the same results she claims to have gotten, with regards to "inter-population diversity". So, I am saying that it is highly dependent on the type of genome being used AND the geographical provenance, if not biohistory, of the populations sampled.
quote: Also how can the autosomal DNA yield the divergent results (if any)?
Unlike uniparental DNA which conserve much ancestry information almost intact spanning several generations, atDNA mutations are more erratic or unpredictable and older information may be lost along the way...made even more so by recombination. Some loci may even be under selection, and hence, likely to be slower in mutation rate than other areas. Such mutations may not necessarily be the same across populations isolated for a good degree of time, secondary to genetic drift and natural selection. So, I can see a scenario, where atDNA clusters may give the impression described by Tishkoff, but under the circumstances I described.
quote: LOL. Yeah right. Tishkoff spent over 10 years sampling populations from all over Africa.
Whatever samples she conducted in the past, have no bearings on this particular study, which has its own sampling specificities and specific markers under investigation. Those sampling particulars are going to generate different results from previous sampling involving different sets of representative groups and different marker types. So, you are attempting to use that quote out-of-context!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice try. In her study she states that she used samplings from multiple studies. Furthermore, autosomal markers would be more relevant to pheotype variety because they do mutate more, and phenotype is a result of mutations interacting with natural selection. In an area of the DNA that remains the least changed, we are not going to see anything proximate to the genes that affect most of our superficial appearance.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Quite so. In her 2002 study as well she again says the same: [quote]:
"Africa contains tremendous cultural, linguistic and genetic diversity, and has more than 2,000 distinct ethnic groups and languages.. Studies using mitochondrial (mt)DNA and nuclear DNA markers consistently indicate that Africa is the most genetically diverse region of the world." (Tishkoff SA, Williams SM., Genetic analysis of African populations: human evolution and complex disease. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2002 Aug (8):611-21.)
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic